IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Mon, 21 September 2009 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B323A680F for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.331
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oeqtZjsRnZ0b for <lisp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8193A6875 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 770B4413B; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:56:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
References: <20090919171820.746426BE628@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4AB5AA3C.5090805@firstpr.com.au> <C0ACCB7B60E6F14B9AC46D742C1009A15D0AAD@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com> <tsl8wg8cgmx.fsf@mit.edu> <20090921204855.GA7205@1-4-5.net> <tslskegat2z.fsf@mit.edu> <20090921214312.GA8975@1-4-5.net>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:56:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20090921214312.GA8975@1-4-5.net> (David Meyer's message of "Mon\, 21 Sep 2009 14\:43\:12 -0700")
Message-ID: <tsld45karmq.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: lisp@ietf.org, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:55:48 -0000

>>>>> "David" == David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> writes:
Dave, I somehow managed to leave out the entire point of my
message--or at least the point that was worthwhile enough to cause me
to hit the send key.
Please see below and see if you can help me out.


    >> Presumably since you're writing you have a different opinion.

    David> 	Different than what?
mine I was hoping that I could restate my opinion and get you to
explain what part of it you disagreed with.  So far you've been grumpy
that I stated an opinion, but not actually stated one of your own.

However all I did was restate my opinion without actually asking you to comment on it.


    >> My assertion #2 roughly boiled down to two parts:
    >> 
    >> A) If PETRs are going to solve the interworking problem for
    >> people who have URPF blockage, then those people need a PETR
    >> they can use.
    >> 
    >> B) It seems fairly clear to me that if people deploy PETRs as a
    >> v6 transition service, they won't be available to the right
    >> people to solve the interworking problem.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email